VC++ 6 Versus VC++.net

[gotham]

Hi I'm just about to start learning Visual C++, but I have one question before I start. Am I correct that with VC++ 6 you can create an application and run it on another PC without it needing any additional runtime files whereas with Visual C++ .net you need the .net framework to make it run ?

[amac]

I don't know much about VC++ 7, but VC++ 6.0 you still need the MFC runtime libraries, but Win2000 and up come with them in the base install... the rest I'm not positive on.

[gotham]

For some reason I had got in into my head that with Visual C++ you don't need runtime files. Cheers for clearing that up. Out of interest is there any version of C++ that you don't need runtime files for eg. Borlands C++ builder ?

[amac]

Oh wait... my mistake... You can link MFC statically, so you don't need the runtime libraries...

[twanvl]

In VC6 you have four choices:
1. Use native win32 api, no runtime needed
2. Use MFC, link dynamicly, needs runtime
3. Use MFC, link static, results in big .exe files
4. Use some other non MFC solution (e.g. wxWindows)

In VC7 you have all the choices you had in VC6, plus one additional choise:
5. Use the .NET framework, requires huge runtime (something like 20 MB)

VC7 also has better support for the C++ language (VC6's language support sucks), it probably optimizes a little better, and needs a faster computer (the IDE/compiler)

[CornedBee]

VC++7 optimizes a lot better than 6.

If you're using Visual Studio.NET (= VC++7) you should have at least 256 MB RAM for good performance. I have 128 and it sometimes has very long loading phases (app stuck for 5+ seconds).
On XP you should have even more RAM.

Solutions other than Native API and MFC (like wxWindows) are likely to need runtimes as well, or produce big exes.

The MFC runtimes of VC++6 came with Win98SE/2k/XP so there was a good chance the user might have them already (but not guaranteed). The MFC runtimes of VC++7 are not delivered together with any current windows version.